FYI Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Russia being called a "first world" nation is dabatable, at the very least. Russia certainly isn't on the same totem-pole as the other western European nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Russia being called a "first world" nation is dabatable, at the very least. Russia certainly isn't on the same totem-pole as the other western European nations. Here we go again -- semantics. Without turning this into another thesis, Russia sits on the G-8, so it thinks its 'first world.' '2nd world' no longer exists (except for Cuba and North Korea). ANd as a matter of fact, So. Korea would actually be classified as an industrialized nation. But we're not going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I'm sure the far majority of Americans would not classify Russia as "first world". Besides, these terms are no longer used. It's either "develop or developing". Russia in the G8 is nothing more than political reasons (Russia can think what it wants). It's just like how the IOC included them on the 2012 short-list when they surely didn't belong there. They were just included for political reasons. If Russia were so "first world", then they'd be in the European Union, but they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Russia bridges the distance between those 2 nations of the 'evil axis.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangwon Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 I don't think you can generalize about where the votes will go that easily. It's hard to just lump all the votes continent by continent. I'll take your word for it about Atlanta '96, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will happen again. Plus, I have a lot of emotion invested in this vote, so I don't want to jinx anything either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Assuming that the Asian and South-African countries will vote as a block is open to debate... Uhmmm, let's look at the vote 4 years ago. In the first round, PC was way ahead with 51 votes; Vancouver had 40 and Salzburg had 16. Salzburg out. Round 2: Vancouver got 14 of Salzburg's votes; 2 went to PC. (The Austrian vote might've actually gone to PC then, so that if PC had won in 2003, then Salzburg would have a better chance this year.) Where did PC's votes for the 2 rounds come from? I wouldn't say it was the core of Vancouver's support to begin with. So, yeah, maybe the Asian and So. African votes will go for Dubai! Oh, but wait, Dubai isn't running this time. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm Jeremie Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 Uhmmm, let's look at the vote 4 years ago. In the first round, PC was way ahead with 51 votes; Vancouver had 40 and Salzburg had 16. Salzburg out. Round 2: Vancouver got 14 of Salzburg's votes; 2 went to PC. (The Austrian vote might've actually gone to PC then, so that if PC had won in 2003, then Salzburg would have a better chance this year.) Where did PC's votes for the 2 rounds come from? I wouldn't say it was the core of Vancouver's support to begin with. So, yeah, maybe the Asian and So. African votes will go for Dubai! Oh, but wait, Dubai isn't running this time. So? Well, maybe you will be kind enough to give me the vote breakdown for 2010 by continent? Also, you conviniently forget to mention that South Korea postion with the IOC is clearly not as strong now that it was in 2003... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 7, 2007 Report Share Posted March 7, 2007 1. Well, maybe you will be kind enough to give me the vote breakdown for 2010 by continent?2. Also, you conviniently forget to mention that South Korea postion with the IOC is clearly not as strong now that it was in 2003... 1. Duh! As I said, UNTIL the day comes along when the IOC voters openly and HONESTLY say whom they voted for, we will never know. But certainly, one can make EDUCATED guesses, which is what this site is all about. If you want to know WHO voted what, you might be luckier with the COllege of Cardinals knowing who voted for which Papal candidate. 2. Agreed. But: (i) their sporting record has improved -- a young Korean skater just won a recent int'l figure skating competition (it MIGHT have been the 4 Continents competition) -- breaking thru the recent stranglehold of Japanese and American women skaters in that category; (ii) a South Korean diplomat sits as Secretary-General of the United Nations. (Having worked in the UN, I just know that he will use the perks of his office to subtly try and influence the votes that are wavering.) (iii) I believe Samsung will be waging a full-court press on behalf of PC, which they were not as overt last time; and (iv) similary, a more conciliatory North Korea has openly decided to throw its lot in with the South. So I believe those 4 factors will mitigate the so-called diminished influence of So. Korea within the IOC. Plus, So. Korea will have other friends within the IOC to pick up the slack. They didn't win the co-hosting duties of the 2002 World Cup alongside Japan without a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 I suspect that, if PyeongChang does get the bid for the 2014 Olympic Winter Games, then it could "snowball" into the other international bids Korea is currently in the running for. Sometimes, these organizations tend to follow the IOC lead and send some of their highest-level events to that particular nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 I suspect that, if PyeongChang does get the bid for the 2014 Olympic Winter Games, then it could "snowball" into the other international bids Korea is currently in the running for. Sometimes, these organizations tend to follow the IOC lead and send some of their highest-level events to that particular nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm Jeremie Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 1. Duh! As I said, UNTIL the day comes along when the IOC voters openly and HONESTLY say whom they voted for, we will never know. But certainly, one can make EDUCATED guesses, which is what this site is all about. If you want to know WHO voted what, you might be luckier with the COllege of Cardinals knowing who voted for which Papal candidate. Well dah! I was just trying to show that you didn't have a monopoly on sarcasm. Back to the topic. I agree it would be a mistake to underestimate Korea lobbying power. I believe that PC has a very good chance. On the other hand, it would be an equal mistake to underestimate Japan influence. Which is precisely why I am not convinced by the "educated guess" of Asia throwing its votes behind PC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Well dah!I was just trying to show that you didn't have a monopoly on sarcasm. Back to the topic. I agree it would be a mistake to underestimate Korea lobbying power. I believe that PC has a very good chance. On the other hand, it would be an equal mistake to underestimate Japan influence. Which is precisely why I am not convinced by the "educated guess" of Asia throwing its votes behind PC... Yeah, I am sure, the Japanese will also wield their influence. But Japan is NOT presenting any candidate for the winter bid. Would the IOC members be so discombobulated in their thinking that just so Japan might have a stronger summer chance in 2009, they will deny their vote for Korea -- even if, say, PC might technically be the best of the three 2014 candidates? That is absolutely warped thinking and they have no business being on the IOC, and should be swept out if that is the criterion they will use for voting in 2014. Their task is to vote for (what they think will make) the BEST candidate for the 2014 Games -- NOT what will benefit a possible candidate for the 2016 Summer Games. And that's why I said, the No. Korean (1) and Chinese votes (2) will neutralize the 2 Japanese votes. But I think the rest of the Asian votes will line up behind the PC bid. I don't really see why another Asian would favor Salzburg/Sochi over PC. For starters, it will cost more to send their few athletes and officials farther away than to a closer locale like PC. And the other Asian NOCs are not nearly as rich as the Korean, Japanese and Chinese ones -- so don't you think they'll be watching their limitd dollars and cents more closely? Also, I'm not the only one counting the votes like this. Even the various bid committees, while obvioulsy they have more funds and resources than I do, I am sure count their 'for' and 'against' possible votes by bloc, to start with. And if they know the IOC members even more -- as I'm sure they know a considerable few, then they will get closer to a more exact count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawnbc Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 I'm sure the majority of Americans couldn't find Russia on a map. Or Washington DC for that matter. Using American opinions on international poltiics, governance and finance as a barometer for credibility? That's like using Inuit to assess the quality of tropical beaches. I'm sure the far majority of Americans would not classify Russia as "first world". Besides, these terms are no longer used. It's either "develop or developing". Russia in the G8 is nothing more than political reasons (Russia can think what it wants). It's just like how the IOC included them on the 2012 short-list when they surely didn't belong there. They were just included for political reasons. If Russia were so "first world", then they'd be in the European Union, but they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!VamosSochi! Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 For starters, it will cost more to send their few athletes and officials farther away As a matter of fact it is free for NOCs as all travel expenses are covered by OCOG (see section 10.18 of the three Bid Books) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 As a matter of fact it is free for NOCs as all travel expenses are covered by OCOG (see section 10.18 of the three Bid Books) Well, what about families, friends and supporters of the athletes who want to go? Will that be covered too by the OCOG? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marit Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 ok, look: for 2010, in the first round Salzburg got 16 vots, PC got 51 - that is unlikely to change to result more votes for the Austrians now.... So, consequently, the race is between PC and Sochi. Reasiltically the chances are as follows: 1. Salzburg will be eliminated in the first round. 2. PC will win in the 2nd round by a clear majority over Sochi. Let's celebrate Pyongchang 2014! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Well, Paris got only 18 votes in the last round for 2008, & 50 votes for 2012. I don't think it's all that clear-cut because every race is different. So to say that Salzburg is gonna end up with the same number of votes as last time is kinda silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm Jeremie Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Yeah, I am sure, the Japanese will also wield their influence. But Japan is NOT presenting any candidate for the winter bid. Would the IOC members be so discombobulated in their thinking that just so Japan might have a stronger summer chance in 2009, they will deny their vote for Korea -- even if, say, PC might technically be the best of the three 2014 candidates? That is absolutely warped thinking and they have no business being on the IOC, and should be swept out if that is the criterion they will use for voting in 2014. Their task is to vote for (what they think will make) the BEST candidate for the 2014 Games -- NOT what will benefit a possible candidate for the 2016 Summer Games. Well, that wouldn't be unheard of. For example, how do you explain that Salzburg got so few votes in the first round for 2010 and that almost every single vote for Salzburg then went to Vancouver? One cannot exclude that the fact that European cities were bidding for 2012 might have had some influence. And that's why I said, the No. Korean (1) and Chinese votes (2) will neutralize the 2 Japanese votes. But I think the rest of the Asian votes will line up behind the PC bid. I don't really see why another Asian would favor Salzburg/Sochi over PC. For starters, it will cost more to send their few athletes and officials farther away than to a closer locale like PC. And the other Asian NOCs are not nearly as rich as the Korean, Japanese and Chinese ones -- so don't you think they'll be watching their limitd dollars and cents more closely? Well not every Asian country takes part in the winter games for a start. And they send far more athletes to summer games than to winter games. Also, I'm not the only one counting the votes like this. Even the various bid committees, while obvioulsy they have more funds and resources than I do, I am sure count their 'for' and 'against' possible votes by bloc, to start with. And if they know the IOC members even more -- as I'm sure they know a considerable few, then they will get closer to a more exact count. Precisely. Counting the votes is the national sports for candidate cities (I should know, I have worked for a bid committee). And there are much more subtle ways to count than assuming the IOC members will vote in block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Iredale Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Solchi are hiring a lot of big names to help them win the bid, but I still don't see them winning to be honest. PyeongChang and Salzburg are very close now. I hope PyeongChang. Salzburg having been gaining ground recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrelled Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 I'm sure the far majority of Americans would not classify Russia as "first world". Firstly, the far majority of people outside America make jokes about general knowledge of it citizens. Shall we make our judgement about America based on those jokes then? Secondly, Russia is in G8 not only beacuse of politics but also because its a huge economic power. Most of its citizens live below poverty line though, but it's a different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Firstly, the far majority of people outside America make jokes about general knowledge of it citizens. Shall we make our judgement about America based on those jokes then? Secondly, Russia is in G8 not only beacuse of politics but also because its a huge economic power. Most of its citizens live below poverty line though, but it's a different issue. There really is this great, big hazy category between "an industrialized, have nation" and the "newly emerging economies." China, India, Russia and Brazil -- up there in the top 8 in terms of population have economies that are heating up and due to their massive sizes, match up with or even surpass the GDPs of such traditional "1st world" nations (France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, etc.). However, if you take into account a per capita count and taking into account general population health, the health system, literacy rates, college-level educated populations, life spans, these 4 newly emerging powers, really don't quite measure up to the 1st world (Western Europe, the US/Canada, Japan, Australia). I know it's an outmoded term, but, heck, this is my post -- so I will use it, because it best describes what I am trying to say. Taiwan and the Republic of South Korea, I think, sit somewhere between the industrialized nations and the newly emergent economies. Very self-sufficient economies with great trade balance-of-payments and gold reserves, but keep a low profile on the power stage due to their bigger, pushier neighbors. Then there is a 4th class of noveaux riche nations -- primarily the oil-rich middle Eastern states and Brunei -- almost like socialized, mildly liberal theocracies, with a rich, relatively small ruling class -- with more money than they know what to do but still need foreign workers to keep their economies going. (A little better than the old military state of Sparta which had all these helots and slaves to keep their city-state going and strong.) And then everyone else is below those. The funny thing is, while the US still has the largest, most vigorous economy in the world, stats show that roughly 40 million Americans do not carry any sort of health insurance, and about 20 million really live below the poverty level (OK, FYI, give or take a few millions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrelled Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 There really is this great, big hazy category between "an industrialized, have nation" and the "newly emerging economies." China, India, Russia and Brazil -- up there in the top 8 in terms of population have economies that are heating up and due to their massive sizes, match up with or even surpass the GDPs of such traditional "1st world" nations (France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, etc.). However, if you take into account a per capita count and taking into account general population health, the health system, literacy rates, college-level educated populations, life spans, these 4 newly emerging powers, really don't quite measure up to the 1st world (Western Europe, the US/Canada, Japan, Australia). I know it's an outmoded term, but, heck, this is my post -- so I will use it, because it best describes what I am trying to say. Taiwan and the Republic of South Korea, I think, sit somewhere between the industrialized nations and the newly emergent economies. Very self-sufficient economies with great trade balance-of-payments and gold reserves, but keep a low profile on the power stage due to their bigger, pushier neighbors. Then there is a 4th class of noveaux riche nations -- primarily the oil-rich middle Eastern states and Brunei -- almost like socialized, mildly liberal theocracies, with a rich, relatively small ruling class -- with more money than they know what to do but still need foreign workers to keep their economies going. (A little better than the old military state of Sparta which had all these helots and slaves to keep their city-state going and strong.) And then everyone else is below those. The funny thing is, while the US still has the largest, most vigorous economy in the world, stats show that roughly 40 million Americans do not carry any sort of health insurance, and about 20 million really live below the poverty level (OK, FYI, give or take a few millions) I am not going to argue about economics as I know very little about (and to be honest hate discussing it) but as literacy level and college level education I assure you is that even in the 3rd world Ukraine and Georgia they are MUCH higher than in let's say highly developped UK. Here I've met quite a few people who can't even spell thier name and some of them can't even read (not many though but for example in my home Russia is unheard of) For about a year I worked as a supply teacher here and I simply couldn't believe how poorly educated most of the kids were: spelling, grammar, maths... I don't even mention History, Geography and Literature (even of thier own country). Even many University graduates often don't know anything about thier country's great past. And as for the health system .... ahhhhhhhhh... I won't even go there Life expectancy here is much higher than in Eastern Europe but I am not sure that this genereation will live as long as thier garndparents who enjoyed much better health service. In a few months I am having a baby and I am really really scared (for myself and for the baby). That is just one example, of just one country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!VamosSochi! Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The world-leading nations to me are those who fly to space, sit on the UNSC and Paris club, and finish top of the OG medals tables Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Well, I would consider them to be nations with high standards of living, like Japan, South Korea & the countries of Scandinavia just to name a few, which don't really have any of the above mentioned (except for Scandinavia in the medals category), but whose citizens enjoy far more comforts & social systems than any Eastern European nation, which is far more important than bragging rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Just as that GB article has stated, with this link. Link: International Herald Tribune: Delegates Present 2014 Olympic Bids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.